This is my third and hopefully last letter to you regarding the proposed hiring of an LFHS principal. It raises legal issues that point to Board liability.

A review of relevant Illinois statutes as well as the LFHS Board of Education Policy Manual based on those statutes (hereinafter “Manual”) prompts me to offer the following for your consideration.

As the legal governing public body tasked with furthering the District’s mission, all Board members swore to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” in accord with the laws of the State of Illinois (in addition to the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions). (Manual, 2:80). The Board owes a fiduciary duty to the District which requires it act in utmost good faith for the benefit of the District, not for other interests or individual people. The District’s mission is clear:

“…our mission is to prepare graduates to be among the best in their chosen fields of endeavor and to be productive contributors to society by inspiring a passion for life-long learning and challenging all students to discover and maximize their abilities through a partnership that engages the entire community.” (Manual 1:30)”

According to Illinois law and to further this mission, the District is governed by a Board. The Board’s specifically enumerated duties include the “authority to adopt, enforce, and monitor all policies” for the management and governance of LFHS. (Manual, 2:10). The non-inclusive list of the Board’s “major powers and duties” include not simply “[a]pproving the curriculum” and “[a]pproving the annual budget,” but specifically include the primary power to hire and fire personnel: the Manual clearly enumerates this Board’s specific duty: “[e]mploying a Superintendent and other personnel, making employment decisions, [and] dismissing personnel […]”. (Manual, 2:20, emphasis supplied).

Regarding a principal hiring, the law states: “The Superintendent is responsible for recruiting personnel and making hiring recommendations to the Board. If the Superintendent’s recommendation is rejected, the Superintendent must submit another.” (Manual, 5:30, emphasis supplied) That same paragraph tasks the Board with hiring “the most qualified personnel consistent with budget and staffing requirements” (Manual, 5:30, emphasis supplied). Thus, while the Board is free to collaborate with the Superintendent to achieve the District’s mission, the ultimate authority to hire the “most qualified” personnel does not lie with the Superintendent. As a matter of law, it lies with this Board. (Manual, 2:130).

It may appear that the Superintendent makes a myriad of hiring/firing decisions on his own authority, but he can do so only with the authority vested in him by the Board. As a practical matter, many of those decisions are “rubber-stamped” by the Board simply because the Board is not a micro-manager and must trust (to a lesser and lesser degree, one hopes) the Superintendent. There is no statutory authority that allows the Board to avoid its primary duty nor delegate this statutory duty away to a third party, like the Superintendent. The Board cannot make itself, and thus cannot regard itself as completely impotent in the hiring or non-hiring of a recommended principal, regardless of past practice, anecdote, rumor, habit, or on the advice of the Superintendent or counsel. Quite the contrary. The “buck stops” with the Board and the Board is liable for the decision, not the Superintendent.

Second, and because the “buck stops” with the Board, it is given the authority and responsibility to “represent [ ] the needs and desires of the community in educational matters.” (Manual, at 2:20, #19). This is part and parcel of the Board’s fiduciary duty to the District. Thus, persons who express fundamental, core values that contravene the desire of the community in educational matters should not be employed and it would be a breach of your fiduciary duty to the District to do so.

Note the express directive that the Board “represent the needs and desires of the community”–not the needs and desires of the Superintendent and not the needs and desires of persons outside the community, not the needs and desires of social theorists or educational “innovators.” No, by law the Board is specifically tasked with representing LFHS parents, students, District taxpayers and their needs and desires, alone. Period. The Board cannot abdicate its role, shut its eyes to the needs and desires of the community and hope for the best. The Board is the only advocate this community has.

Third, the Manual also governs the conduct of District employees and their electronic communications. It states: “All District employees are expected to maintain high standards in their school relationships, to demonstrate integrity and honesty, to be considerate and cooperative…” (Manual, 5:120). Employees using “any form of social media or electronic communication…shall not:

Create, post or transfer any discriminatory, threatening, libelous, obscene, or slanderous comments about the District, its employees, students, or parents; [or] publicize, disclose, distribute, or post any material or communications which causes, or can be reasonably expected to cause, substantial disruption of the school environment, including communications which…[a]re harassing, threatening, or discriminatory….Employees must adhere to the high standards for appropriate conduct, communication, and relationships detailed by District policies at all times, regardless of the platform of social media….” (Manual, 5:125, emphasis added).

It would be grossly and recklessly negligent to hire a person to lead the LFHS community who has publicly demonstrated a lack of “integrity and honesty” by hiding social media postings that express slanderous and discriminatory views of the LFHS community, which views have already caused a “substantial disruption of the school environment”.

In conclusion: the Board has primary authority to hire a principal and may accept or reject the Superintendent’s suggestion. The Board has a fiduciary duty to represent the needs and desires of the community in educational matters and clearly this includes the hiring of school leadership aligned with those needs and desires. Finally, the Board would negligently and recklessly violate its duty to the District to hire someone whose social internet postings were so vile and offensive to the community that she had to hide them from the Board and the community to get the job. Ladies and Gentlemen, when constituted as a Board you are the champions of the mission and guardians of the LFHS community. I am confident you will do your duty.

2. 105 ILCS 5/10-16a. Fiduciary, from the Latin fiducia, meaning “trust,” a person who has the power and obligation to act for another under circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty. A fiduciary is held to a standard of conduct and trust above that of a stranger or of a casual business person. See: http://www.legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fiduciary+duty

3. See also Manual at 2:130 and 3.60. Nowhere does the law mandate that the Board adopt any of the Superintendent’s recommendations on hiring proposals.

4. For this reason, also, allowing people who live outside the District to comment at a Board meeting on the hiring of an LFHS principal is not simply a waste of time, but also greatly impairs the Board’s duty to communicate with LFHS stakeholders and learn their desires and needs during the public comments section of the Board meeting. Outsider speeches should not be allowed.

This Letter to the Editor is from Jennifer Neubauer of Lake Forest. Letters to the Editor represent the writers’ opinions and not necessarily those of Daily North Shore.

Have lived in Lake Forest for over 45 years, sent five children through the high school; I am appalled at the lack of quality of the current candidate for the Principal position. Equally, it is a disgrace that we have outside hucksters and lawyers appearing to “pressure” our Board to make a terrible decision on a new principal. Who is responsible for this obvious attempt to “jam” in a candidate who not only lacks the basic competency, but espouses radical ideas that have no relevancy for our children? Strongly, advise the Board to terminate those personnel first and then get on to the job of finding a quality person to fill the needs for our children and community!

“What is most troubling about Chala Holland is not her position on tracking. What is most troubling is her reference to “white privilege,” which is an integral part of a set of arguable theories (e.g., Critical Race Theory, Critical Pedagogy) that are politicizing and poisoning professional development, English curricula, social studies curricula, and even world languages curricula. These theories include a host of assumptions posited as incontrovertible facts. And in most schools, neither students nor faculty study resources critical of Critical Race Theory, thus violating the most basic intellectual commitment of sound pedagogy.

School boards should be asking administrative and faculty candidates for their positions on Critical Race Theory, Critical Pedagogy, “Teaching for Social Justice,” and “white privilege.” They should be asking them which scholars most influence their pedagogical beliefs. They should ask them for their views of Tim Wise, Paul Kivel, Peggy McIntosh, Paulo Freire, and Bill Ayers,

Thanks for your letter. This sums up our feelings rather eloquently and we hope the school board accepts their responsibility to rein in the loose canons in the District administration. Further, it is time to look closely at Mr. Simick to see if he really has been much of a fit for our district. Having just paid my real estate taxes, I realize I want more say in the spending conduct of this administration. No more rubber stamping on poor direction and decisions from this or any other succeeding board! Please come to the June 9th meeting @ 7 PM to be counted!

I hope the Board has had some time to do some soul searching and deep consideration of the facts and potential ramifications of their decisions since May 26th.

As a LFHS stakeholder, I still remain very concerned about the fast process and the lack of community representation in the task force that narrowed the search down to one candidate for the Board to consider. (2 non-elected parent volunteers on the task force does not represent the community). I expect that the community and Board would desire a principal candidate with a proven track record and relevant work experience to charge the lead and not consider it a position where you come to “cut you teeth”. I think it’s fair to say, we as a community expect more.

As an aside, The US News and World Report High School Rankings 2015 came out recently (it is just one metric, for some a debatable one, but many still consider it a go to source when evaluating a high school). While Northside Prep still remains ranked #1 in Illinois, with a STEM rank of #29. LFHS has gone from #24 to #26 in 2015 with no STEM rank. Last year, Libertyville was just behind LFHS at #25 and is now #13. There has been much talk at the high school about the importance of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) or STEAM (Art) in our curriculum and its effect on our students’ ability to be competitive as they prepare for jobs in the future. Does this current candidate have the relevant work experience and back ground to guide us in that direction ?

Another important consideration is if it was confirmed that the current candidate was accompanied by lawyers at the last board meeting on May 26th prior to being hired. If true, I am very concerned as LFHS stakeholder about our ability to hold such a candidate accountable for job performance if actually hired for the position.

In short, I hope the Board has the courage and insight to act independently and move forward in hiring a new principal based on good information and good faith, not blind faith.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Daily North Shore encourages comments, but we have specific guidelines that you can find here. A general principle is: Do not state anything in a comment that you would not say in public and do not state anything about another person that you would not say to his or her face.

Name *

Email *

Website

Notice: It seems you have Javascript disabled in your Browser. In order to submit a comment to this post, please write this code along with your comment: 20085edb27df6f9ba9ef19b367eb63fc